Madras High Court
Ponnammal (Died) ... Sole vs M.Manoharan on 24 March, 2022
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
in
S.A.(MD)No.897 of 2010
Ponnammal (died) ... Sole Appellant
1.Lalitha
2.Saroja ... Review Petitioners /
Legal Heirs of the deceased Appellant
Vs.
Murugesan (died)
1.M.Manoharan
2.M.Rajkumar
3.M.Sampath Kumar
4.M.Rajammal
5.M.Ilavarasan
6.M.Vijayalakshmi
7.M.Devi
8.Masilamani ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of
C.P.C., praying to review the order passed by this Court in S.A.(MD)No.
897 of 2010 dated 02.07.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
For Petitioners :Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
for Mr.T.Cibichakraborthy
For R1 to R7 :Mr.R.Thamothar Raj
ORDER
The appellants in S.A.(MD)No.897 of 2010 have filed this review
application. The respondents herein filed O.S.No.588 of 1997
(renumbered as O.S.No.329 of 2004) on the file of the Principal District
Munsif, Valangaiman for declaration that the deed of cancellation dated
11.08.1997 is null and void. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.135 of 2006 before the Sub Court,
Kumbakonam. The first appellate court by judgment and decree dated
05.04.2010 reversed the decision of the trial court and allowed the appeal
and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendants filed S.A.(MD)No.897 of 2010. By judgment and decree
dated 02.07.2018, the second appeal was dismissed on the ground that
no substantial question of law arose for determination. Seeking review
of the said order, the review application has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
pointed out that the sale deed dated 01.12.1995 executed by the deceased
Ponnammal in favour of Murugesan was a fraudulent document.
3. This Court is not concerned with the validity or genuineness of
the sale deed dated 01.12.1995. In the evidence, it has been admitted
that the sale deed was executed by Ponnammal. The only question that
arose for determination was whether such a document could have been
unilaterally cancelled. This issue had long ago ceased to be res integra.
The Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision
reported in 2011 (2) CTC 1 (Latif Estate Line India Ltd., Vs. Hadeeja
Ammal) had held in Paragraph No.59 as follows:-
“(i) A Deed of Cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed by the
transferor does not crate, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest
in the property and is of no effect. Such a document does not create any
encumbrance in the property already transferred. Hence, such a deed of
cancellation cannot be accepted for registration.
(II) Once title to the property is vested in the transferee by the sale of
the property, it cannot be divested unto the transferor by execution and
registration of a deed of cancellation even with the consent of the parties.
The proper course would be re-covery the property by a deed of conveyance
by the transferee in favour of the transferor.
(III) Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with the condition that
title will pass on payment of consideration, and such intention is clear from
the recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can be cancelled by a
deed of cancellation with the consent of both the parties on the ground of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
non-payment of consideration. The reason is that in such a sale deed,
admittedly, the title remained with the transferor.
(iv) In other cases, a complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at
the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the Civil Court by
obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of
fraud or any other valid reasons.”
4. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the
second appeal filed by the review applicants was rightly dismissed. There
is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record. The review
application stands dismissed.
24.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
Rmi
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.225 of 2019
in
S.A.(MD)No.897 of 2010
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
